From the University of Michigan and the department of Mothra studies, comes this big let down. Even though moths are supposedly affected by climate change, “90 percent of them were either stable or increasing” while the climate where they lived warmed. But wait! Moth scientists know there MUST be an effect, so in contradiction to their observations, the moth scientists claim the climate change effects are now apparently “hidden”. Hopefully, those moths thriving under global warming doesn’t lead to giant moths.

ANN ARBOR—A 32-year study of subarctic forest moths in Finnish Lapland suggests that scientists may be underestimating the impacts of climate change on animals and plants because much of the harm is hidden from view.

The study analyzed populations of 80 moth species and found that 90 percent of them were either stable or increasing throughout the study period, from 1978 to 2009. During that time, average annual temperatures at the study site rose 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit, and winter precipitation increased as well.

“You see it getting warmer, you see it getting wetter and you see that the moth populations are either staying the same or going up. So you might think, ‘Great. The moths like this warmer, wetter climate.’ But that’s not what’s happening,” said ecologist Mark Hunter of the University of Michigan.

Hunter used advanced statistical techniques to examine the roles of different ecological forces affecting the moth populations and found that warmer temperatures and increased precipitation reduced the rates of population growth.

“Every time the weather was particularly warm or particularly wet, it had a negative impact on the rates at which the populations grew,” said Hunter, the Henry A. Gleason Collegiate Professor in the U-M Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

“Yet, overall, most of these moth populations are either stable or increasing, so the only possibility is that something else other than climate change—some other factor that we did not measure—is buffering the moths from substantial population reductions and masking the negative effects of climate change.”

The findings have implications that reach beyond moths in Lapland.

If unknown ecological forces are helping to counteract the harmful effects of climate change on these moths, it’s conceivable that a similar masking of impacts is happening elsewhere. If that’s the case, then scientists are likely underestimating the harmful effects of climate change on animals and plants, Hunter said.

“We could be underestimating the number of species for which climate change has negative impacts because those effects are masked by other forces,” he said.

Hunter and six Finnish colleagues report their findings in a paper scheduled for online publication April 15 in the journal Global Change Biology.

The study was conducted at the Värriö Strict Nature Reserve, 155 miles north of the Arctic Circle and less than four miles from the Finnish-Russian border. The nearest major road is more than 60 miles away.

Between 1978 and 2009, Finnish scientists used light traps at night to catch 388,779 moths from 456 species. Eighty of the most abundant species were then analyzed.

Hunter used a statistical technique called time series analysis to examine how various ecological forces, including climate, affected per capita population growth.

Scientists want to know how climate change will impact insects because the six-legged creatures play key roles as agricultural pests, pollinators, food sources for vertebrates, vectors of human disease, and drivers of various ecosystem processes.

Researchers believe that butterflies and moths may be particularly susceptible to population fluctuations in response to climate change—especially at high latitudes and high elevations.

Most recent studies of moth abundance have shown population declines. So Hunter and his colleagues were surprised to find that 90 percent of the moth species in the Lapland study were either stable or increasing.

On one level, the results can be viewed as a good news climate story: In the face of a rapid environmental change, these moths appear to be thriving, suggesting that they are more resilient than scientists had expected, Hunter said.

But the other side of that coin is that unknown ecological forces appear to be buffering the harmful effects of climate change and hiding those impacts from view. The results also demonstrate that “simple temporal changes in population abundance cannot always be used to estimate effects of climate change on the dynamics of organisms,” the authors conclude.

“The big unknown is how long this buffering effect will last,” Hunter said. “Will it keep going indefinitely, or will the negative effects of climate change eventually just override these buffers, causing the moth populations to collapse?”

Another big unknown: What ecological forces are currently buffering the Lapland moths from the negative effects of a warming climate?

Finnish team members who’ve been collecting moths at the Värriö reserve for decades say they have noticed a gradual increase in tree and shrub density, increased rates of tree growth, and a rise in the altitude of the tree line.

Trees provide food and shelter for moths, and leaf litter offers overwintering sites and resting areas away from predators. Perhaps the observed vegetation changes are helping to offset the negative effects of warmer temperatures and increased precipitation. That possibility was not analyzed in the current study.

The work was supported by a Strategic Research Grant from the University of Turku and the Nordic Centre of Excellence Tundra, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence and the Nordic Center of Excellence CRAICC.

Let’s see, today is April 15. I’m gonna try telling the IRS that I actually paid twice as many taxes last year as they think I did, but that the extra amount was “hidden”. In fact, it was so sooper sekrit that no evidence at all can be found of it – that’s how good a job of hiding it I did.

Isn’t that sorta like say God did it?
They set out to prove increasing temperature and precipitation would be bad for the Moth communities and when that didn’t pan out they make claims to the “unknown'” for why it didn’t happen. Their original hypothesis just can’t be wrong.

“If unknown ecological forces are helping to counteract the harmful effects of climate change on these moths, it’s conceivable that a similar masking of impacts is happening elsewhere. If that’s the case, then scientists are likely underestimating the harmful effects of climate change on animals and plants, Hunter said.”

Another treasure for my collection of circular arguments. Thanks Anthony.

“We could be underestimating the number of species for which climate change has negative impacts because those effects are masked by other forces,” he said.

Or you could be assuming something that is not happening at all. This is the equivalent of my little daughter being afraid of the boogy man under the bed or in the closet.

“Yet, overall, most of these moth populations are either stable or increasing, so the only possibility is that something else other than climate change—some other factor that we did not measure—is buffering the moths from substantial population reductions and masking the negative effects of climate change.”

Or maybe you could just admit that ‘stable or increasing’ is not evidence of some mystical/imaginary/measurable effect.

We just can’t find anything wrong from climate change at the higher latitudes. Species are thriving, tree lines are expanding further north. There is this factor that is making everything all roses. This just can not be good. I am going to lose my grant money doing all this research for 32 years. Help!

Looks like the warmer temperatures and increased precipitation are producing the gradual increase in tree and shrub density, increased rates of tree growth, and a rise in the altitude of the tree line, no? So this gives the moths food and shelter and leaf litter offers overwintering sites and resting areas away from predators. (sorry, I’m cutting and pasting from above).

So where are the negative effects of the increased warmth and precip. Looks to me as though the guys have got their logic back to front. Advanced statistical techniques? Modeling?

“ANN ARBOR—A 32-year study of subarctic forest moths in Finnish Lapland suggests that scientists may be underestimating the impacts of climate change on animals and plants because much of the harm is hidden from view.”

For 32 years of work this bit of baseless drivel is quite the amazing research result.
My guess is they were sitting on their asses for 32 years downing Finnish vodka, paying for it with taxpayer money.

Give them credit — at least they admitted they were unable to find any adverse impacts from climate change. I also found it amusing they claim to have used this powerful statistical tool — time series analysis, as if it was a novel application. Time series is used everyday to study statistical process in a variety of fields. Indeed, the failure to use simple statistical techniques is is a fundamental problem with much of the research in climate change.

You fools! This is the same effect as when the hidden heat from warming causes ‘instruments’ to register cooler temperatures – the cooler temps are even more proof of warming. You don’t get it because you’re not climate scientists.

What’s most incredible in these junk science studies is the fact that, for some reason, climate warming is aways deadly, regardless of what things appear to be doing. Not that long ago a declining population growth was seen as goal (for humans), not something to be avoided,
especially when talking, you know, moths (pronounced as by Inspector Clouseau).
The bizarre belief that the current climate is the best climate is an example of environmental chauvinism or being a Dr Pangloss – the best of all possible worlds.

Climate change and conspiracy have one thing in common. As the complete lack of evidence is the surest sign the conspiracy is working, so too the complete lack of temp rise is the surest sign the globe is warming. The complete hidden effects to the moths is surest sign they are effected.

“Hunter used advanced statistical techniques to examine the roles of different ecological forces affecting the moth populations and found that warmer temperatures and increased precipitation reduced the rates of population growth.”

Let’s see, today is April 15. I’m gonna try telling the IRS that I actually paid twice as many taxes last year as they think I did, but that the extra amount was “hidden”. In fact, it was so sooper sekrit that no evidence at all can be found of it – that’s how good a job of hiding it I did.

They’ll give me a big refund based on that, right? Right?

Er, no. You have hidden something on the Internet. That means they’ll send NSA around. You must be a Terrerist… See you in a basement floor in Fort Meade. Or Guantanamo…

…team members… noticed a gradual increase in tree and shrub density, increased rates of tree growth, and a rise in the altitude of the tree line…
some other factor is… masking the negative effects of climate change…

Yes, that would be the benefits from increasing levels of CO2. In this case the link between correlation and causation is strongly supported by the empirical data.

“Hunter used advanced statistical techniques to examine the roles of different ecological forces affecting the moth populations and found that warmer temperatures and increased precipitation reduced the rates of population growth”

So increasing population of moths resulted in a decreased “rate” of growth. Seems to me, that is a pretty normal process. As a population of any group reaches equilibrium with its available resources, the population growth rate slows, stabilizes and declines. Much like the grade school explanation of bacteria doubling in a test tube. Actually a great example and the experimental confirmation is even more interesting with self-cannibalization in the absence of nutrients also used as portent of things to come. Seems like in some areas of science, critical mass has been achieved. /Winking turned off

“On one level, the results can be viewed as a good news climate story: In the face of a rapid environmental change, these moths appear to be thriving, suggesting that they are more resilient than scientists had expected, Hunter said.”

Resilient to what for Christ’s sake? The freezing bloody cold?

This level of stupidity is getting published ? This is the end of science.

“You see it getting warmer, you see it getting wetter and you see myth populations either staying the same or going up. Myths like this warmer, wetter climate.”… said ecologist Mark Hunter of the University of Michigan. (fixed, thanks to Bruce Cobb).

As stated
“If unknown ecological forces are helping to counteract the harmful effects of climate change on these moths, it’s conceivable that a similar masking of impacts is happening elsewhere. If that’s the case, then scientists are likely underestimating the harmful effects of climate change on animals and plants, Hunter said.”
As should have been stated
If unknown ecological forces are helping to counteract the harmful effects of climate change on these moths,(then it is likely that these “Harmful Effects” of Climate change aren’t as harmful as theory indicates) it’s conceivable that a similar masking of impacts is happening elsewhere (and therefore theory also indicates a stronger negative effect than is indicated by direct examination). If that’s the case, then scientists are likely
OVER(under)estimating the harmful effects of climate change on animals and plants, Hunter should have said.

Here is a thought. There are some that believe in esoterics, such as telepathy, talking to dead people, ghosts, etc, etc. There is no difference between AGW and esoterics because in both camps there is no observed data, only belief and now magic moths.

Steve C says:
April 15, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Brilliant! Invisible armageddon! They should try setting up “a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is” … hmmm, now that sounds familiar …

Kit Blanke says:
April 15, 2014 at 1:56 pm
““Hunter used advanced statistical techniques to examine the roles of different ecological forces affecting the moth populations and found that warmer temperatures and increased precipitation reduced the rates of population growth.””

“The study was conducted at the Värriö Strict Nature Reserve, 155 miles north of the Arctic Circle and less than four miles from the Finnish-Russian border. The nearest major road is more than 60 miles away.”

And then this:

“Scientists want to know how climate change will impact insects because the six-legged creatures play key roles as agricultural pests, pollinators, food sources for vertebrates, vectors of human disease, and drivers of various ecosystem processes.”

So studying moths 155 miles north of the Arctic Circle, 60 miles from the nearest road, and (most likely) miles from any significant human population center is going to relate to agriculture and human disease how? Exactly which diseases are communicable by moths? And how are moths inside the Arctic Circle “driving” the ecosystem?

If you want to study moths, study them. Whatever. Just don’t pretend it has anything to do with climate change and human diseases. This seems like a perfect case of hijacking the cause du jour (climate change) to make your research seem more important. I’m sure they didn’t go into the woods 155 miles north of the AC 35 years ago because of C02. It’s an excuse, not a reason for the research.

“Yet, overall, most of these moth populations are either stable or increasing, so the only possibility is that something else other than climate change—some other factor that we did not measure—is buffering the moths from substantial population reductions and masking the negative effects of climate change.”

“… much of the harm is hidden from view…” So well hidden it can’t be detected in any way whatsoever, but it must be there because our grant depends on it. Smacks more than a little of utter desperation.

Interesting that the driving presumption, accepted as a matter of faith (i.e. religion) is that ‘Climate Change’ (formerly ‘Global Warming’) is harmful to. . . everything! So if no harm is found (I guess we should give them kudos for reporting ‘negative’ observations), then there must be invisible, ‘hidden’, countervailing forces at work. Simply amazing!

When are these putative ‘scientists’ going to start critically examining their assumptions?

“Every time the weather was particularly warm or particularly wet, it had a negative impact on the rates at which the populations grew,” said Hunter, the Henry A. Gleason Collegiate Professor in the U-M Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

“Yet, overall, most of these moth populations are either stable or increasing, so the only possibility is that something else other than climate change—some other factor that we did not measure—is buffering the moths from substantial population reductions and masking the negative effects of climate change.”

==================================================================
The dead moths are hiding in the ocean?

There’s nothing wrong with forming a hypothesis that “this” will cause “that”. But when observation shows that the “this” didn’t cause “that”? Don’t cling to it. Take what you learned by observation and move on to a better hypothesis.

“You see it getting warmer, you see it getting wetter and you see that the moth populations are either staying the same or going up. So you might think, ‘Great. The moths like this warmer, wetter climate.’ But that’s not what’s happening,” said ecologist Mark Hunter of the University of Michigan.

Hunter used advanced statistical techniques to examine the roles of different ecological forces affecting the moth populations and found that warmer temperatures and increased precipitation reduced the rates of population growth.

Never believe your own lying eyes. When observations go against your theory then it’s false. It doesn’t matter what you name is or how smart you are. / (borrowing from Feinman)

This really is one of the worst ‘craziness of the week’ batshit that I have seen in years. It’s that bad and sad. Utter garbage.

I’ve already explained this… No, all the dead unicorns are hiding at the bottom of the ocean. After eating the dead moths they all jumped in to take away the excess heat – sacrificing themselves to save the planet. My proof is; have you seen them, the dead moths or the excess heat? (I applied for a grant to develop a model for how dead unicorns are able to sequester the heat but I haven’t heard back yet.)

I wonder how these climate change studies will be worded in the future if and or when CO2 levels decline (it will inevitably eventually some hundreds to thousand of years from now). I can only imagine that temperature fluctuations are still going to take place. Now, there are 2 major possibilities, either CO2 causes climate change, or it doesn’t.
During the years, decades or centuries of declining CO2 in the atmosphere, will there be massive funding of climate change studies still. If so, there will probably be many studies that show bad things happening as the CO2 levels drop. CO2 levels may very well drop and match levels seen in decades and centuries past. There are a lot of dynamics involved including lag / response time, randomness, chaos, and I wouldn’t expect weather or climate to match the conditions of past CO2 levels.
In conclusion; will this enthusiasm to fund climate change studies from present day funders continue if the world signed onto a global binding emissions reduction targets? Will the political class just move on to the next “crisis” that will require global governance?
Unlike the “fixes” from past problems “acid rain”, ozone, the so called fix this time is massively costly, distributive, largely unworkable, would take decades to centuries, and the supposed cause of climate change, global warming, doesn’t currently seem to be happening.
Meanwhile, the tools for skeptics are going to continue to improve at the same time that the world improves as plant food continues to increase in concentrations in the atmosphere.
ggm

““We could be underestimating the number of species for which climate change has negative impacts because those effects are masked by other forces,” he said.”

A “negative” impact can only be “masked” when the “other forces” have a “positive” impact. So he’s in effect saying: The positive impact outweighs the negative impact. (Positive impact could be CO2 fertilization).

So, I don’t know if he is consciously coding it that way but it just MIGHT be a subversive way to bypass the CO2AGW censors.

” A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World”
(Some day Frontiers In Psychology should ponder the connection between that subtitle and the CO2AGW cult. Oh wait – it’s not a topic for Frontiers; because Festinger analyzed it already in 1956. What? Psychology journals don’t notice that their very own discipline foretold the emergence of the CO2AGW cult half a century ago and predicted their behaviour?)

Mr Lynn
Kudos for reporting negative results? They haven’t! Good news is BAD NEWS! It’s worse than we thought, so bad that we can’t SEE what is saving the moths from something we know is REALLY BAD…
This has to be the dumbest “paper” I have ever seen, and I have read a lot. There has been NO critical assesment of success or failure. Where is the peer review??

“The big unknown is how long this buffering effect will last,” Hunter said. “Will it keep going indefinitely, or will the negative effects of climate change eventually just override these buffers, causing the moth populations to collapse?”

And on a slightly different topic:
The big unknown is how long this pause will last. Will it keep going indefinitely, or will the heat in the oceans eventually just override this pause, causing the temperatures to sky rocket?

“The big unknown is how long this buffering effect will last,” Hunter said. “Will it keep going indefinitely, or will the negative effects of climate change eventually just override these buffers, causing the moth populations to collapse?”

Why is it that Climastrologists persistently look for something bad to say about obvious good news? Why couldn’t they just publish their results instead of torturing the data with ‘advanced statistical techniques’ to find something they never found ie ‘ warmer temperatures and increased precipitation reduced the rates of population growth.’?

Finnish team members who’ve been collecting moths at the Värriö reserve for decades say they have noticed a gradual increase in tree and shrub density, increased rates of tree growth, and a rise in the altitude of the tree line.

They are discovering the other magical powers of co2. These nutcases really can’t see the wood for the trees. Pun intended.

That possibility was not analyzed in the current study.

Because they assumed they were going to find a decline. Garbage in and out.

Three decades of research and they still can’t quantify optimal conditions for the subarctic forest moths?
It took all of about 2 minutes the find another paper “Massive moth outbreaks cause large-scale damage in subarctic mountain birch forests….”
Read More: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/12-0917.1 (Revised: September 13, 2012)
-Finnish Forest Institute

BREAKING NEWS: Increasing CO2 causes an increase in vegetation. This increase creates more habitat and allows moths and other organisms to thrive. But this is bad news because… because humans produce it, so we know CO2 is evil and incapable of doing good. Therefore, we know that something bad is going on. We just can’t figure out what it is. Besides, if we don’t provide politicians with an emergency that requires new taxes, our grant money will dry up.

JimS says exactly what I am thinking. This sort of mentality runs throughout Climastrology Voodoo studies.

JimS says:
April 15, 2014 at 1:19 pm

We just can’t find anything wrong from climate change at the higher latitudes. Species are thriving, tree lines are expanding further north. There is this factor that is making everything all roses. This just can not be good. I am going to lose my grant money doing all this research for 32 years. Help!

If this paper had made the deadline, would it have been selected by the IPCC scientists? The IPCC is a cherry picking organisation – it has to be bad news (most of the time). They are fit for the purpose, picking the finest cherries that money cannot buy.

True, or not, I’m pleased that the moth populations are reported as stable or increasing. I think they are soft and fluffy and, almost, cute. I don’t mind them fluttering about the room when I’m going to sleep. There, I said it. I like moths.

Moths and related butterflies are indeed among the important pollinators. Many moth species’ populations ebb and flow depending on environmental factors including suitable habitat for their host plants where caterpillars feed before pupating. Many moths and butterflies require very specific host plants whereas others are generalists. The health of moth and butterfly populations is intimately related to the health of the host plants. It is therefore the host plants that are the primary marker for the health of moth and butterfly populations. Temperature fluctuation of several degrees F are unlikely to directly affect moths; host plants are more likely to be affected with some host plants migrating northward or to higher elevations. Darwin described this as have numerous studies since. Temperatures have fallen and risen by several degrees F in the northern latitudes a number of times during recorded history, and virtually all moth and butterfly species have survived these temperature fluctuations.

As with other species, habitat destruction, not climate change or global warming, is the primary threat. One recent major and increasing threat for moths, butterflies and other insects is the use of herbicides to control plant life along power line right of ways, roads, and even trails. This poisoning of important “edge habitat” by herbicides where both host plants and nectar plants are located is far more of a threat than any global warming that has occurred or is predicted. Insects, of course, are the primary food of many species including birds, not only insectivores, but all bird species which feed high protein insects to their fledglings.

Another major and growing threat is the increasing use of genetically modified crops which are resistant to insecticides and herbicides. This allows broadcasting of insecticide and herbicide sprays that decimate insects and their host plants over very large areas. Studies are now suggesting that migrating butterflies such as Monarchs (and thousands of other butterfly, moth, and insect species that migrate) can not find their required host plants because of the edge habitat destruction and the host plant destruction described above. Of course, this is also true for the non-migrating permanent resident insects. Those species higher up in the food chain are obviously also affected.

As a life long conservationist, my number one quarrel with the global warming/climate change hype is that it promotes a minor problem at the expense of understanding and addressing real environmental problems. When climate wars engage the passion and shape the concerns of so many, we likely address and fund the wrong problems. I have watched this happen during my lifetime- a very, very sad experience for this old conservationist and environmental educator.

Come on folks, if they’d said the “climate change” either hadn’t impacted or – heaven forbid – had been beneficial to the moths, they would have doubtless lost their funding and been expunged from the fraternity of scientific research in perpetuity.

Even totally irrelevant climate McScience researchers have to earn a crust somehow!

So instead of concluding, based on the evidence, that the moths are adapting well to changes in their environment, the authors, thanks to climate obsession syndrome, conclude the moths are in trouble.
AGW is a pernicious social disorder that destroys the intelligence of those who believe in climate doom.

Doug Allen, I too am a life long conservationist and, incidentally, butterfly appreciator. As such, I keep a close eye on (specifically to your post) Monarch host plants, wherever I travel, mostly locally. My personal observations are at odds with your statement “Monarchs … can not find their required host plants because of the edge habitat destruction and the host plant destruction… ) I am sorry, but I see milkweed everywhere, both when I drive and I am on foot or pedaling. Because I am a geek for these things, I always examine the plants for Monarch larva, and I find far more milkweed than I do larva. FAR more. I find milkweed in the ‘edges’ of roadways and fields and even golf courses, as well as peppering natural-growing meadow landscapes and yes, even crop fields. While we can agree on ‘climate change’ and its lack of credibility, your sweeping pesticide and gmo statements must come under some scrutiny vis-a-vis the monarch.

BTW, Doug, your photos on Flicker are wonderful. Though this fellow kills his moths, I am thinking you may appreciate his work nevertheless. To see one of his reproduced scans up close is astounding. http://old.moths.ca/index.html

Let’s see. We found absolutely no evidence that climate change is causing a problem for the moth population. But the problem might be “hidden” and we think the problem is most likely a lot worse than we thought.

This is science? Seriously? Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh!

My 8th Grade kid would be very lucky to earn a D for scientific reasoning like this nonsense.

heysuess
I said studies “suggest.” I read on the National Butterfly Asso and other lep lists about the host plant problems which you might find by googling? Case not closed. Fair enough. Do you live in the northern states where milkweeds are still abundant? My wife is from nothern NY where that is true. We visit every summer. How about the bread basket midwest, the main northward migration flyway for Monarchs where gmo crops cover square mile after square mile? Here in upstate SC where I retired, most milkweek species don’t survive. Not for my lack of my trying! We have very few northward Monarch migrants and not many southward migrants. Some are planting milkweek here and in other states where it is uncommon. Maybe it will help?

I can give an interesting anecdotal example of herbicide spraying which is very common where I live. Four springs ago, I discovered a colony of Baltimore Checkerspots, a beautiful butterfly species which is common to our north, incuding northern NY. It had not been found in SC (or nearby) for over 20 years. I posted the sighting and some pictures to a regional leps list. Several wanted to visit and see the Baltimore Checkerspots. I returned to the wetland location, which is under some powerlines, two days later. The entire area had been sprayed with herbicides. All the vegetation was turning brown, and there were no butterflies of any kind. If this were repeated everywhere, every year it would create major habitat destruction for many species. I read that that is already happening, but can not confirm it.

My thesis is not really that Monarchs or any other species is presently endagerered, but that real environmental problems are neglected because of the tunnel vision of seeing all environmental problems as a subset of global warming/climate change.

It must be part of the Climate Science play book. Under no circumstances must the “potential” 2C temperature rise be presented to benefit man nor beast. They went looking for devastating impact,found none and proclaimed “Since Climate Change is bad, and we found none, there must be some unknown force at play”… Personally, I think they missed it. Flatulent Lapland reindeer. That is the unknown. All that methane, just waiting to explode! /sarc

I wonder how these climate change studies will be worded in the future if and or when CO2 levels decline (it will inevitably eventually some hundreds to thousand of years from now)……..

Objection! Do you know when global population will stabilize? The UN says 2100 BUT others strongly disagree. Some say by 2070 or less. Where will human population numbers be in 2200? Check out falling fertility levels.

How is this even possible? For the last 25 years we’ve been told repeatedly that climate change means the end of life as we know it on ths planet. So are we now to believe things are getting even worse?

Hi again Doug. Yes I do live in Southern Ontario where milkweed and monarchs are plentiful, although I did not see as many last year as I have in previous years (I have a series of photos I took a couple years ago where thousands upon thousands of monarchs had gathered in trees, just like they do in Mexico, as a staging area, I presume, which I would be happy to link you to privately). I have read this study http://www.mlmp.org/Resources/pdf/5431_Monarch_en.pdf with particular attention to the ‘threats and impacts’ section where our old friend ‘climate change’ is given equal billing to other potential threats, all but one related to human interference – a serious red flag. Here they are.

I bring the same skepticism to studies like this as I bring to any study. Buyer beware. I do buy into your idea that the current obsession with ‘climate change’ distracts our attention and money from real stuff.

Thanks heysuess for your kind comments about my butterfly/moth/bird/other critter photos and for the link. Yes, I’ve gone to that link before. My wife is from Massena, NY, 60 miles south of Ottawa.
And I didn’t mean to indicate in my post above anything about the status of endagerered or threatened species. My posts today have been about a different topic- the neglect of real environmental problems with known solutions when said environmental problems are seen as a subset (or caused by) global warming/climate change. As for data philjourdan- the 0.7 C global temperature increase the past 150 years is a minor very minor problem compared to other anthropogenic changes. We are half way to a doubling of CO2 which suggests to me that we may have another 0.7 C increase sometime by late this century- global temperature remaining a minor problem, at worrse. Climate change is driven by warming and cooling, so it’s not unexpected that there has been little documented climate change. Should the predicted strong El Nino actually occur and should temps iincrease like they did in 1998, that will be significant data. Should the strong El Nino not occur or not cause a significant jump in temps, then that is significant data. The data will eventually decide who is corect and who is mistaken. We’re not there yet, but getting closer IMO. I wish the philjourdans of this world actually paid attention to data.
And as for the moth study above, it shares assumptions about warming and climate projections that are at odds with the empirical data. I think 1978 to 2009 is too short a time to definitively determine moth population health just as it’s too short a time to know the magnitude of climate sensitivity to CO2. But it’s good to know that the moth populations there are doing fine.

@Doug Allen – I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I do not see how you go from some clowns ignoring the data about moths to what the temperature increase has been in the last 150 years.

Clearly the “Mothra” study found nothing. Then they tried to say they really found something, but something else was masking it. That is ignoring the data since the data only said there was nothing there.

@ Doug Allen: Ditto what others have said about your terrific pages of photos. My wife is from Massena, too—small world! And my son-in-law is a moth expert (he’s got a website on moths, but has not had time to get it completed, so I won’t post a link). He and my daughter are both entomologists, so I’ve forwarded him this thread, as well as a link to your photos.

Hi Mr. Lynn,
Yes, small world. My wife is a Massena Maston. And ironically my Osher Lifelong Learning Field class at Furman U this morning met with the Furman prof and lepidopterist who manages the excellent SC moth database. Your son-in-law and daughter may know who that is. Though not my field, I’ve down some citizen science lepidoptery here in SC since retiring!
For those still following this thread, it would be a good time to read again (or for the first time) the excellent WUWT guest essays by Jim Steele about the corruption and contamination of biological science (It’s about a butterfly species) by climate science dogma, part one here- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/fabricating-climate-doom-part-1-parmesans-butterfly-effect/

“To be published in online journal Global Change Biology”
“advanced statistical techniques” “time series analysis”
I felt sad for the University of Michigan. They paid these guys for thirty years, then i saw
“Supported by the US National Science Foundation” and I felt the pain of wasting my tax dollars.
Yuck!

@Jimbo Simply, there is a finite quantity of fossil fuels. What does human population have to do with my statements?

Maybe I interpreted your statement in the wrong way. I thought you said that it would take “hundreds to thousand of years” for co2 level ppm in the atmosphere to decline.

garymount says:
April 15, 2014 at 3:08 pm

I wonder how these climate change studies will be worded in the future if and or when CO2 levels decline (it will inevitably eventually some hundreds to thousand of years from now)……..

I accept that Co2 level increase in the atmosphere since the Mona Loa measurements started is from man. If the total global population declines after this century what do you think will happen to co2 levels in the atmosphere? Further, I am not even going to speculate about energy innovations over this century or next.

The population of the world is increasing a 100,000 a day, the fastest in Africa. We are living longer, becoming more healthy, but we may be underestimating the impacts of climate change on people because much of the harm is hidden from view.

This seems like a perfect case of hijacking the cause du jour (climate change) to make your research seem more important.

===================================================================
An acquaintance of mine is a tenured physics professor at a well-known university who knows better, but her funding proposals are peppered with “carbon footprint” justifications simply to get the money. We call her the climate $lut.

Erkki Pulliainen has been a full time politician for years. His dissertation is famous. He had made behavioral research with wolves, and found out that 50% of wolves did one thing and 50% the other. His research material had been as much as two wolves.

I’m about 99% sure that the hidden force is… warming. I don’t know about Michigan, but here in Finland we have something called “winter”, during which the moths hibernate. That means they don’t move or eat, they just try to somehow not die of cold.

Even if warmer weather during summertime would somehow be a disadvantage during the time they are not hibernating, the slightly less horribly cold winter would more than make up to it by less moths freezing to death in the winter.

After thinking about the issues of insect pollinators and pesticides it occurred to me that this study has some merit, it shows that moth’s are doing just fine away from human habitats and industrial strength agriculture zones. So to repeat same study within human habitation and agricultural areas will be very interesting to see what impact are found!

While I’m not living in Finnish Lapland I live reasonably nearby, in Central Sweden. Up here in the taiga zone (about at the same latitude as Anchorage) there are marked interannual variations in the numbers of moths/butterflies.
Anybody care to guess whether there are more of them in warm or cold summers?

Do hidden factors of climate change fall under known unknowns or unknown unknowns? I really want to know.

And since we’re talking about hidden factors of climate change, maybe somebody can show where the global warming is hiding? At least three times a week I see a story on one of the broadcast networks nightly news programs about how the earth is warming, about how global warming is worse than we thought, etc., etc. But it hasn’t warmed in well nigh two decades. So where is the global warming hiding?

Don’t worry about Mothra predictions coming from the CAGW cult since they are now claiming Bergmann’s Rule is a “principle of biology” that applies to all species of animals, including ectotherms. That’s right, warmer climate is causing cold blooded animals to have to work harder to survive, causing them to shrink and suffer from higher mortality rates, sayeth the good book of global warming. But don’t worry, this years bitter cold winter in eastern North America should have really given ectotherms a boost this year.

more soylent green! says:
April 16, 2014 at 1:38 pm >>At least three times a week I see a story on one of the broadcast networks nightly news programs about how the earth is warming, about how global warming is worse than we thought, etc., etc. But it hasn’t warmed in well nigh two decades. So where is the global warming hiding?
——–
In fevered imaginations, that’s where the warming is hiding.

Philjourdan,
Your post followed mine and appeared to be directed at my post. Obviously I was mistaken, and the philjourdans and dougallens of the world do indeed pay close attention to data. Now, if everyone else did, we wouldn’t have the fear mongering, the polarization, and the climate wars. The data is ambiguous enough that there would be differences of opinion, but every one would acknowledge them in a civil and respectful way, there would be enougfh common ground to create low regret policy, and all would agree that hypothesis testing (and scientific method in general) would, over time, create a mature and respected science of climate. Oooops- wake up Doug. You’re dreaming.

@Doug Allen – thank you. When I posted my comment, yours had not yet appeared, so I had not read it. But as my comment was short and not very explanatory, I can easily see now where that assumption was made. So I apologize for not being more precise with my original post. I had just finished reading the article and was still stunned by it!

I accept that Co2 level increase in the atmosphere since the Mona Loa measurements started is from man. If the total global population declines after this century what do you think will happen to co2 levels in the atmosphere? Further, I am not even going to speculate about energy innovations over this century or next.

When I wrote what I wrote I was simply thinking about the quantity of oil, coal and natural gas in the ground. Coal appears to be in such large quantities that it wont run out for hundreds of years.
CO2 in the atmosphere (from fossil fuel burning) will continue to increase, reach an apex, then decline.
It is possible that soon scientists, then politicians will come to the realization that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a greater good for the globe, so who knows what our descendants will decide when it comes to burning the remaining fossil fuels in the decades and centuries ahead. It may turn out that the so called energy innovations are worse than burning fossil fuels.
As for innovations, there are still huge potentials in the area of computer advancements. For example, if cars (trucks, etc.) become computer driven, a study I conducted concluded that the American economy could save up to $2 trillion dollars a year.

I see that philjourdan was indeed addressing one post to me that I’m “barking up the wrong tree.” Well I agree climate science has pretty much gone to the dogs and that that moth studies and any other get more funding and attention when if they are careful to endorse the CAGW meme whatever the data. Philjourdan, the data, I think, is so important that it should be spoken of and constantly reinforced every time someone endorses the CAGW meme. Every time someone refers to predictions (model projections) about the future, I immediately ask them about the temp record from the beginning of the industrial revolution until now. When they have little idea, I refer them to a NOAA temp chart that shows the small amount of warming that occurred last century and the little or none this century. IMO, the data is its own best argument for dispelling wide-eyed CAGW fear or enthusiasm.

“Hunter used advanced statistical techniques to examine the roles of different ecological forces affecting the moth populations ” – Such techniques are the modern equivalent of casting chicken bones and interpretting them.

Doug, what I know about milkweeds and monarchs through my own observations locally might be the flip side of what I don’t know about mid-west farming techniques. I had no idea that roundup and roundup ready products were so ubiquitously used.

I’m not as current on logical fallacies as I should be. But isn’t Hunter’s reasoning a classical example of Argument From Ignorance?

No worries, Hunter. The unknown ecological forces are hiding out at the bottom of the ocean. You and Trenberth should burn some incense to Davy Jones. It wouldn’t hurt if you also sacrificed a virgin goat.

“The IPCC’s mission is to find and assess the the risk of human-induced climate change. The answer was defined at the outset. That’s not the modus operandi of a scientific body…….If you’re mission is to find human-induced climate change, you better find it. Otherwise you’re not going to be in business very long.”

I’ve seen this attributed to Murry Salby, but I’m not sure. It would also seem to apply to the study of Mothra …